Intel Pentium 350 Processor has Sandy Bridge DNA



+ Add a Comment


Difference with the Pentium 350 and other SB Pentiums is the support of HT and ECC ram. This is made for more towards extremely low level workstation / servers?



Unless that processor only costs $15, its performance will be seriously lacking.  1.2 GHz dual core means it'll perform on about the same level as a Pentium D in processor-bound titles, and while that's gee-whiz awesome considering the power savings versus the Pentium D, it's bringing back memories of the bad old days of the Pentium name.  Seriously, I think that most dual-core systems that are less than 4 years old will beat this thing in performance.  The only thing that could save this puny thing is if it had HD3000 graphics to go along with it...and according to the link, it has no graphics to speak of.  Unless this thing is aimed at netbooks, I can't even recommend for my mother's machine.



No. No. No. It'll be much faster than a pentium D because clock speed is not all there is to a CPU. CPU architecture matters more than clock speed and the sandy bridge architecture delivers much higher instructions per clock cycle than the netburst architecture of the pentium d. I imagine it's much faster than the fastest pentium D. It's also likely faster than the first generation core 2 duo E2xxx CPUs.

The sad thing about chips like these is that they never show up in developing countries like mine. I imagine it's because if these chips were sold here more expensive CPUs would never sell.



...I do have actual maths on that, toms hardware did an article a while back testing instructions per clock cycle, testing the last 6 years or so worth of processor microarchitectures, all at 3 GHz, and with a lone core enabled.

My math comes from the handbrake test, which is nice and reliable, where the 2500K@3.0GHz finishes in 654 seconds, while a Pentium 4 (Prescott) comes in at 1752 seconds.  Extrapolating linearly, since this Pentium has the same cache/core as a 2500K, and we see that a processor based on the same architecture, running @ 1.2 GHz is running at 40% the speed, and consequently will take 1/.40 or 2.5 times the time to complete the same task.

That means that doing the same task, a 3.0GHz Prescott takes 1752 seconds and a 1.2 GHz Sandy Bridge should take 1635.  That's too close for my comfort, honestly.

Now, there is something to be said for how the architecture will handle threads and cache-misses better than Pentium D, so in a threaded app, I'd expect a measurable lead, since the handoffs from one core to another won't have to go through the northbridge, since they're shared in the cache.  We might even see 2005-era Athlon performance out of it.

My point is, while Sandy Bridge is great (I love my 2600K and how it runs at 4.6GHz all day), cores and efficiency are two parts of a three part puzzle.  You can have a horrible modern processor, and it can even use good technology.  That said, I have seen similar-performing processors in the clearance bin at Micro Center for $15, so unless the price is good on this one, I will still say that it's just not up to the task of modern computing, even day-to-day tasks may suffer.

Oh, and here's the chart I used:,2767.html



Even for netbooks, this is pretty bad.  My netbook has an Atom D525, a dual core, hyperthreading, 1.8GHz chip which uses two watts less than this.  Certainly, SB lineage helps, but does it really make just over half a gigahertz difference at these performance levels?

Also, for price reference, my CPU cost Asus $63.



but can it play arkham city?

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.